Standing Committee G

[Mr. Win Griffiths in the Chair]

Education Bill

Clause 25 - Power of governing body to provide

Graham Brady: I beg to move amendment No. 243, in page 15, line 38, at beginning insert:
'Subject to subsection (1A) below'.

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 244, in page 15, line 42, at end insert:
'(1A) Each local education authority shall report annually on the funding of services provided by its maintained schools under subsection (1) above.'

Graham Brady: I hope that you will permit me sufficient latitude, Mr. Griffiths, to wish you and Committee members a happy new year, and I hope that proceedings will continue in a good-natured way.
 Amendment No. 243 would oblige local education authorities to report on the provision of community facilities. That would take account of the considerable new powers that are provided under clause 25, which include the power to incur expenditure in the provision of community facilities, to enter into agreement with outside bodies to provide staff, goods and services, and to provide accommodation for those purposes. The considerable scope of those powers requires protection for the public purse. We must ensure that we know how the powers are used and what the expenditure implications are. Given the powers over governing bodies that the Bill will grant to local education authorities, we must ensure that public funds are not used improperly, either in individual schools or within a local education authority. 
 The clause is an odd mixture of responsibilities and functions, which subsequent amendments will tease out and clarify. It does appear that the Government intend a mixed burden of responsibility for the provision of community facilities by schools. Local education authorities will be responsible in some cases for health and safety matters, thus giving the final go-ahead to new ventures, but in others the decision will lie with the school and the governing body. The new scheme will develop in an unpredictable manner, and the amendments would ensure that the public have sufficient information about the financial implications.

Ivan Lewis: May I take this opportunity to add that I am delighted that you are in the Chair, Mr. Griffiths, at the beginning of this new year? I also wish Committee members a very happy and healthy new year.
 I assure the hon. Gentleman that I share the 
 objectives of his amendment: probity, accountability and transparency in expenditure on community activities. However, the hon. Gentleman should withdraw the amendment, which would require the local education authority to publish all expenditure on community activities in which schools may be involved. That would place an onerous burden on LEAs, which is unnecessary in view of other safeguards. 
 Other clauses will ensure that information on expenditure for the provision of community services is available and transparent, and LEAs will be able to report on that if they believe that to be the best way forward. Provisions under clause 42 will require financial statements to capture all expenditure by governing bodies, which will include expenditure involved in exercising the powers to provide community facilities. The clause also makes it clear that regulations may require governing bodies to keep records on accounts and to send copies to the LEA. Schedule 3 provides another safeguard by allowing LEAs to seek specific information on the funding of community services. 
 There are sufficient safeguards to deal with the concerns about accountability, transparency, openness and financial probity that were raised by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), and I ask the hon. Gentleman again to withdraw the amendment.

Graham Brady: The Under-Secretary's response was helpful. Clause 42 may provide a requirement for proper financial reporting, but will that extend to the financial implications of the provision of accommodation? Will that be accounted for as it would in proper commercial accounts?

Ivan Lewis: I understand that any use of community facilities for community activities would be part of the accounting processes. That includes accommodation, which would be integral to many of the financial consequences of extending a school's role to include a variety of community activities. That information would be gathered as part of the accounting process.

Graham Brady: The Under-Secretary has gone almost as far as I would like him to. Will he confirm that the financial value of the accommodation provided should be accounted for at a commercial value, and that it will be reported on in the financial reports that are expected under clause 42?

Ivan Lewis: Governing bodies will be responsible for ensuring that accounts accurately reflect income and expenditure, part of which relates to community activities. We want to see a significant extension of schools' involvement in community activities, provided that that relates directly to raising standards. We expect governing bodies to maintain an accurate record of that income and expenditure, but it is up to governing bodies to decide an appropriate charge to a third party if they wish to allow their premises to be used for a purpose that is consistent with community use. In view of my assurances, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Graham Brady: I am grateful for that clarification. As I understand the Under-Secretary, the governing body's financial reporting obligations are confined merely to direct income from, and expenditure for, the provision of community facilities. It is not required to account for the value of public property and resources—effectively, the capital—that is deployed. Our useful exchange has drawn out the Government's thinking about the extent of financial reporting that will be required.
 I think that all hon. Members agree that, in many circumstances, there are advantages in schools providing community facilities. However, there may be implications for competition with services that the local authority provides by other means and for competition with outside providers. I merely flag up the possibility that other providers may have cause for complaint in that such use of public facilities is not accounted for in a comparable way. We have had a useful exchange in which the Under-Secretary has provided helpful assurances and information, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Eleanor Laing: I beg to move amendment No. 181, in page 15, line 42, at end insert—
'(c) children below school age in the form of pre-school education.'.
 I should say at the outset that we support the intention of clause 25. It is commendable that the governing body should have the power to make the premises and facilities of the school available to others in the community who are not pupils at the school. The purpose of the amendment is to make the clause more specific. 
 Ministers and the Government have announced their commitment to early-years education and to pre-school places for children aged four, and even three. If the commitment is to be more than just words that make Ministers sound good when it suits them, there should be a commitment in the Bill to make provision for pre-school education for children below school age. Amendment No. 181 would provide for such a commitment. 
 We have often said, and undoubtedly will again, that much of the Bill is wide and general. It allows this or that body to do almost anything. I am seeking a specific commitment. If the Government are committed to providing pre-school places for early-years education, such a commitment should appear in the Bill—and not just in this clause. That is why there should be a paragraph (c) that mentions specifically children who are below school age.

Ivan Lewis: I thank the hon. Lady for saying that the Conservative party shares the broad objectives of the clause. There is a consensus that broadening the range of community activities that schools can offer and in which they can be involved is good for both the pupils and the wider community. Bringing the community into the school will benefit adult learners, for example, as well as help to tackle some of the
 antisocial behaviour problems that we all know exist in our communities. Young people sometimes hang around outside while schools are closed. Those schools, working with the local community, could play a far more central role in tackling some difficulties. I welcome that general support.
 We can be particularly proud of the Government's record on child care and early-years education, and I do not believe that we should include any particular prescriptive commitment in the Bill. If we were failing to deliver our pledges, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) would have a more legitimate point, but we are not. Indeed, it may be helpful to quote several examples of where the Government are making significant progress on child care and early-years education. 
 When the Government came to office in 1997, about 34 per cent. of all three-year-olds had access to a free early-education place. As a result of funding since 1997, that number has risen to about 62 per cent., which is a significant increase in a relatively short time. By March this year, the Government will have achieved their public service agreement target to provide a free early-education place to 66 per cent. of all three-year-olds. Committee members would agree that that is a credible record.

Phil Willis: It is a proactive Liberal Democrat policy.

Ivan Lewis: I notice that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) was proactive during the holiday in response to my unfair comments on the status quo just before Christmas.
 The Government made a commitment to provide a free early-education place to all three-year-olds from September 2004, and I repeat that commitment this morning. The funding for early-years education is expected to increase from £1 billion in 1996 to about £2 billion in 2002–03. The Government have a credible track record on their commitment to investment in child care and early-years education. I hope the Committee will agree that we do not need to put particular targets in the Bill in the way that is suggested by amendment No. 181. 
 When the Bill's provisions come into force, all maintained schools will have the opportunity to provide child care for children of any age. That will include child care for three and four-year-olds, and we would expect that when governing bodies choose to provide child care, they will provide early-years education as part of the experience. For example, within an eight to 10-hour child-care day, three and four-year-olds will benefit from, on average, two and a half hours of pre-school education. That will benefit parents, teachers and others in the community who use the facilities. 
 Significantly, we would also ensure that the quality of the care is of the highest order. I do not need to explain the importance of the quality, not just the quantity, of child care or why good pre-school education is extremely important to a child's development and subsequent chances in life. It is common sense that Governments invest as a priority in 
 early-years education and child care. We know that the interventions made in those years can make the difference in a child and young person's development, particularly for those from disadvantaged families and communities, where there may be problems within the family unit. Early intervention through child care can make all the difference to the development of children and young people.

Eleanor Laing: I agree with the Under-Secretary's comments. Given that commitment and that we all agree on its importance, why will he not make the commitment in the Bill?

Ivan Lewis: I do not want to have a ping-pong discussion such as that before Christmas, when we agreed on objectives but disagreed about the mechanisms to achieve them. That would not be the best use of the Committee's time. Anyone who considers the issues objectively will accept that the Government have a very good and positive record. Legitimising the enhanced involvement of schools in a broader range of activities will support, assist and facilitate the Government's existing commitment to child care and early-years education. The definition and prescription in the amendment is not desirable or necessary.
 We should remember that we are giving the governing body a power, not a duty. School governors will decide whether their school is best placed to provide child care or any other form of community provision. The governing body might decide to do that directly or through a third party, such as a voluntary sector or community-based organisation. We all know of community organisations in our constituencies, often run by young mums, that do an excellent job of providing child-care services. That takes us back to the point made by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West about unfair competition. In many areas, community-based and voluntary sector organisations will benefit from the opportunities presented by enhancing the role of schools to provide a broader range of community activities. 
 I have not given the hon. Member for Epping Forest exactly what she wanted, although it is the new year and I would have liked to be able to do so, but I hope that I have reassured her about the Government's genuine intentions, commitment and track record in this policy area. On that basis, I ask her to withdraw the amendment.

Eleanor Laing: I listened carefully to the Minister's reiteration of the Government's commitment, which we wanted to hear. If we cannot have that commitment in the Bill, at least it will appear in the record of the Committee's debate, which is better than nothing. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Graham Brady: I beg to move amendment No. 265, in page 16, line 6, after 'education)', insert 'except section 450'.
 I make no apology for the fact that the amendment is designed to open a can of worms. Clause 25 applies 
 the requirements and terms of chapter 3 of the Education Act 1996 to the charging for the provision of services and facilities. The Government's decision is interesting, first and foremost because the Minister of State acknowledged earlier in our proceedings that the Government did not intend to apply the terms of that chapter to schools that were allowed flexibility through the innovation provisions. 
 I shall not go to the unnecessary length of reading out the relevant provisions of the 1996 Act, but the scope of the legislation was quite considerable. It made a real attempt to encompass all the circumstances in which it may be appropriate for a school to charge for facilities. It prohibited charges for the provision of education. We had an interesting exchange early in our proceedings where the Minister of State agreed with me that neither side of the Committee wanted to introduce charges for the provision of education in maintained schools, yet he vigorously resisted the suggestion that we might include such a requirement in the Bill. 
 The 1996 Act contains detailed provisions about when charges may and may not be applied. They relate to charges for provision that is made outside school hours, incidental charges, charges for public examinations, permitted charges of various sorts and the regulation thereof, charges for board and lodging at boarding schools, provision of information and contributions and charges that are not affected by the chapter. It is interesting that the Government did not consider any of them to be appropriate to apply to schools granted freedom to innovate under the early clauses of the Bill. Yet here, under the clause 25 powers to provide community facilities, they believe that all those legislative provisions must apply. 
 Part of my purpose in tabling amendment No. 265 is to seek an explanation from the Minister about why it is more important to place those requirements on the provision of community facilities in clause 25 than on the provision of educational facilities in clauses 1 and 2. It seems rather odd that the Government are taking great care to protect the public from the imposition of charges in relation to community facilities such as the use of a school swimming pool or hockey pitch yet when it comes to educational innovation none of that protection is deemed appropriate. I wonder why. 
 Specifically, the amendment seeks to draw out one aspect of the provisions in the 1996 Act. Section 450 is a fairly simple provision that states: 
''(1) No charge shall be made in respect of admission to a maintained school.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the admission of any person to any maintained school for the purpose of—
(a) part-time education . . . (b) full-time education . . . or (c) teacher training.''
 It is not clear whether the term ''admission'' applies simply to admission to be a pupil at the school or to the school premises. Do the Government see it as appropriate to apply the relevant sections of the 1996 Act to the clause 25 powers to provide community facilities in such a way as to limit the scope of the governing body to charge for its provision? The Minister may reply immediately that it applies only to admission to the school roll. Will the governing 
 body be restricted in charging members of the community for the use of services? Will charging for admission to the premises be treated differently from charging for the use of facilities, training or coaching? The crucial point is not the detail of section 450, but to hear Ministers explain why the protection in the 1996 Act should apply more to the provision of community facilities than educational services.

Ivan Lewis: It was made clear in earlier debates that the suspension of charging would not apply to powers to innovate, which are not in question. However, there is no need to build it into the Bill because, under chapter 1, part I, no suspension will be allowed without the approval of the Secretary of State. No requirement to seek that approval is required in this instance, so the prohibition needs to be built into primary legislation. I repeat that there is no requirement to seek the Secretary of State's approval in these circumstances, but there is in respect of powers to innovate.
 The lack of the requirement to seek approval explains the differences from the earlier debate to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The need for the prohibition to be built into primary legislation applies only in the one case, but that does not mean that we are taking the issues raised in the earlier debate less seriously. Different safeguards apply to decisions to engage in community activities. 
 My direct response to the hon. Gentleman is that the power to innovate requires the approval of the Secretary of State, who would consider the appropriateness of charging for services that contravened existing legislation or conflicted with the attainment of higher educational standards. Where an individual school or governing body seeks to provide community activities, the Secretary of State does not need to be consulted. In those circumstances, the safeguard needs to be built into primary legislation to ensure that the Government's policy—and the commitments and assurances of the Minister of State and myself—are not abused or undermined. 
 The amendment refers to charging for post-16 part-time education, post-19 full-time education and teacher training. The hon. Gentleman was honest enough to admit that the detail of the amendment is not important: it is a probing amendment. Schools already provide full and part-time education. Section 80 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and section 450 of the Education Act 1996, already allows them to charge for that provision. Therefore, I assume that this is a probing amendment. The hon. Gentleman is not proposing that we remove from governing bodies the capacity to charge for services for which, in some circumstances, they already charge. There is a clear, objective justification for governing bodies feeling that it is legitimate to charge for services such as those to which the amendment refers. 
 For example, students are already charged for some further and adult education classes. It would not be right to prevent governing bodies from covering their 
 costs for providing similar educational opportunities on a school, rather than a college or adult education site. If we were to deny governing bodies the opportunity to make those legitimate charges—the consensus is that charging for such provision is legitimate—it would contradict the purpose of the Bill to expand, encourage and facilitate enhanced involvement in community education activities. I therefore assume that the hon. Gentleman does not want to press the amendment to a vote. 
 We shall publish guidance that will offer advice to governors on adopting charging policies. As it is a complex matter, on which governors may be unfamiliar and inexperienced, the guidance will assist and support them by making clear what is legitimate and lawful and where they have discretion. We shall also advise governors on how to establish charges that are relevant and proportionate to individuals' ability to pay. 
 In the light of that explanation and my assurances, I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider withdrawing what appears to be a probing amendment.

Graham Brady: I am interested in the Minister's response. He was not clear on the detail of the amendment, but I assume from the tenor of his remarks that the scope of the relevant sections of the 1996 Act relates only to admission to the school roll of a maintained school and cannot be construed as being admission to the school premises. Unless the Minister states otherwise, I shall accept that. However, I do not accept the attempt to differentiate between this and the situation in clause 2 relating to innovation and freedom simply because the approval of the Secretary of State must be sought. The Secretary of State and the Minister of State assure me that the Government have no desire to allow charging for education in maintained schools—and nor do future Conservative Secretaries of State. However, that is not a reason why such constraint should not be applied in primary legislation. It is perhaps the most important of all the legislative constraints that apply to the provisions for maintained schools and state education, but Ministers are prepared to do without it.
 There is a false distinction between the refusal to apply chapter 3 of the 1996 Act to innovative matters because the Secretary of State's approval is necessary and the belief that statutory protection is necessary to the clause and the powers to provide community facilities. The distinction is false because, as the Minister mentioned, clause 26(4) provides almost the same protection. It states: 
''a governing body shall have regard . . . to any guidance about the exercise of the power given . . . by the Secretary of State''.
 It is difficult to envisage circumstances in which the Secretary of State would not be prepared to include the important issue of the validity of charging regimes in guidance. Governing bodies are required to have regard to guidance. Surely the protection provided under clause 26(4) is almost as strong as that which the Minister says is provided under an earlier clause that gives the Secretary of State an outright power of veto. I do not accept the Minister's distinction. We are discussing an important subject that raises the issue of the Bill's fundamental flaw, which is that Ministers are 
 reluctant to include details in the Bill that might inform Members, the public, and those who will implement the powers and responsibilities created under the Bill. 
 I do not wish to press the amendment to a Division. However, the Minister should reflect on the Government's inconsistent approach. In some instances, they are prepared to allow detailed statutory safeguards to remain in primary legislation, but in others, they open the door wide, and say ''Go on, do as you like,'' and place no statutory restriction on what can be done, not even—in theory—on introducing charges for places in maintained schools. I hope that the Minister will reflect on the matter and will perhaps introduce some improvements later. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Phil Willis: I apologise for being slightly late. I wish a happy new year to all members of the Committee except for the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis), whose team, Cardiff City, beat Leeds United on Sunday. I shall not speak civilly to Welshmen for a few days. Once the matter is out of my system, I will be okay. [Interruption.] I am determined that there will be no more Mr. Nice Guy in 2002.
 I listened with interest to the comments made by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West. At the general election, it was Tory policy that there should be free schools and no local authority involvement. All resources, with exceptions for a few functions, would be devolved to schools. That would have meant that no school could provide community facilities unless those facilities were self-financed. I am deploying Government thinking and would like the Minister's comments.

Graham Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Phil Willis: I will just finish my point. I do not want the hon. Gentleman to get too excited.
 I agree with the Minister's comment about the need to make greater use of all our public facilities, and in particular our schools. It is sad to see young people hanging about—often with nowhere to go—when brilliant facilities are available for them. The previous Government set up a regime that made it clear that schools could not afford to open up their premises unless they could get an income from doing so. I had to cancel many youth facilities simply because I could not afford the costs of providing, for example, the premises and the staffing. Unless the youngsters could pay, we could not afford to do things. I urge the Government to take on board the fact that it is not good enough simply to give governing bodies the power to do things; we should also give them the matching resources that enable them to do those things. 
 I accept the Minister's comments about early-years education. My party is delighted that the Government have put into practice 1997 Liberal Democrat 
 manifesto commitments: the Minister is laughing but that is what the Government have done. However, I also want them to give the Committee, and governing bodies, the assurance that resources will be allocated for community services—instead of charging having to be introduced to provide them.

Graham Brady: I merely wish the hon. Gentleman to comment further, as he misunderstood the scope of the powers of a local authority—regardless of its position as a local education authority. I wish him to reflect on whether a local authority might have the power to expend funds to make community provision of, for example, leisure or sporting facilities through schools, regardless of whether they are maintained schools, free schools, foundation schools—or any other type of school.
 The Government have tried, in a limited way, to open up the sometimes excellent facilities of independent schools by creating partnerships between them and schools in the maintained sector. That is a welcome initiative, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to be more open minded about the different ways in which facilities might be provided. Therefore, he might wish to reconsider some of his opening remarks.

Win Griffiths: Mr. Willis, do you wish to do that?

Phil Willis: No. I am happy with the comments that I have made.

Ivan Lewis: Perhaps being more open minded is a reasonable new year's resolution to ask every hon. Member to adopt?
 I agree with the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough that we have a responsibility to ensure that resources are available to enable schools to be imaginative and innovative, to open their facilities and to engage with partners in the community, whoever they might be—voluntary and community organisations, for example, or NHS trusts, or private sector organisations, where appropriate. It is important to support such initiatives. A lot of money is being spent on study support, for example, and there is a lot of evidence to suggest that that is already contributing towards a significant improvement in standards. 
 However, it is also important to ensure that existing resources are being used to best effect. For example, the provision of accessible health services within a community might be an issue, in which case it would be necessary to address where those services locate themselves, as well as if they are spending existing money inappropriately. If services are not as accessible as they could be, it is important to address that, as well as to ensure that the Government make money available—through local education authorities, for example—to stimulate and support the development of extended schools. 
 We are talking about a significant culture change in the way that we look at community involvement and participation, and about schools being at the heart of their communities. For example, we are already spending a considerable sum on providing adult, community and family learning. There is a whole 
 range of existing funding available, including the children's fund, money for early-years development child-care partnerships and neighbourhood renewal. To be fair to governing bodies, one of the challenges that we face is to help them make sense of the range of funding schemes, which requires a different set of skills and experiences. I have experience of running a charity. The ability to tap into the available resources, knowing how to put applications together to hit the relevant criteria and ensure that one is working in partnership with other organisations that trigger resources is not necessarily a skill that people acquire without training, guidance and support. We must offer not only financial support specifically to target and stimulate service provision, but help governors and head teachers to acquire the skills and knowledge necessary to maximise the opportunities to trigger resources and truly open up the opportunities presented by the Bill. 
 We must also examine how central Government allocate and distribute resources and introduce the mechanisms that incentivise partnership. We must support initiatives in which schools make a particular effort to be innovative and we must examine these matters throughout Departments, not only in the box marked Department for Education and Skills. Encouraging schools to take a wider role in community activities has a bearing on many of the difficulties experienced by our communities, such as crime and antisocial behaviour, which is a scourge in many communities, health issues such as teenage pregnancy or drug abuse and poor rates of adult literacy and numeracy. If we are sufficiently innovative, imaginative and streamlined in the way in which we allocate resources and inform people about how to access them, cause 25 can make a difference to the Government achieving their objectives in a range of policy areas. 
 I agree with the comments made by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough about the need to provide resources to ensure that concepts are transferred to reality. We will examine how to offer specific support to local education authorities to enable them to have some form of infrastructure, albeit minimalist, that would enable schools to go down this route. There will be Government financial commitment, but we will also be asking the statutory voluntary and private sectors in communities throughout the country to come together to ensure that they take maximum advantage of the new powers and opportunities provided by the Bill. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Stephen O'Brien: On a point of order, Mr. Griffiths. This matter relates to preparation time for the discussion that we will have shortly on clause 28. Members of the Committee received a letter dated 19 December from the Minister providing draft regulations in relation to clause 41, which we do not come to until much later. In contrast to that, my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale received only at 10.30 am today, an undated letter from the
 Minister, signed in his absence, concerning the documents in relation to clause 28. Today's letter also refers to clauses 42 and 43. My other hon. Friends have not received it at all and neither have I. I have also been informed that it has not been received by other Opposition Members. It is appropriate to contemplate whether there should be a suspension to allow for consideration of what the Minister believes is pertinent to the discussion on clause 28 in advance of reaching it.

Stephen Timms: Further to that point of order, Mr. Griffiths. May I begin by welcoming you, Mr. Griffiths, to the Chair and by wishing every member of the Committee a happy new year?
 We intend to provide as much information as possible to hon. Members about regulations. Such a concern has been expressed in earlier debates. Unfortunately, because of the Christmas break, it was not possible to get the information out as early as I would have liked. However, in anticipating this problem, we have copies of the information here for each member of the Committee. I am in your hands, Mr. Griffiths, about the mechanism to distribute the information. We intend to be as helpful as possible to all hon. Members.

Graham Brady: Further to that point of order, Mr. Griffiths. We are grateful to the Minister when he distributes draft regulations in a genuine attempt to be helpful. We have pressed for that on many occasions. However, I suggest to the Minister that it is not helpful to the Committee, and is perhaps even unhelpful, when draft regulations are received in the internal post at 10.30 on the morning on which a particular clause is to be discussed—as happened this morning. Technically, the Minister will be able to claim that the information was available to Opposition Members before discussion in Committee. Practically, I have had no opportunity to read the letter that arrived this morning while the Committee was sitting and, because the Minister offered generously to distribute copies of the paper to all members of the Committee during the sitting, there is no proper opportunity for any member of the Committee to consider the detailed document.
 I ask that consideration be given to a brief suspension to allow hon. Members to read the document, or to the reordering of the discussion of the clauses. If the papers are of value when considering clause 28, it is senseless for us to proceed with the discussion without reading them.

Stephen Timms: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that he suggested that we should not have given out the information because that was possible only early today. He suggested that it was unhelpful to provide the information because of the timing.
 We felt that it was important for as much information as possible to be available to hon. Members by the time that we reached this point of the Committee's deliberations. It is possible for an hon. Member, even one who plays such a prominent part in our debates, to have the odd moment in which to examine additional information. As I said, we have 
 ensured that copies are here for each member of the Committee. 
 I make it clear to the Committee that once we are back in the swing of things, we will ensure that information is provided as early as possible to allow hon. Members to read it before the Committee meets and to allow them to take account of that in their preparation for each sitting. I was anxious that the information should be available to every member of the Committee because it was available in the Department yesterday. That is why we took these steps.

Phil Willis: The Minister is disingenuous to say the least. The information is not even on the Table and available to every member of the Committee, although it may be behind the desk. I understand that the document runs to 30 or 40 pages. It is unrealistic to ask us to read that during the Committee's sitting. The Minister reduces the Committee to a sideshow if he feels that we should not concentrate on the Minister's erudite comments in response to our equally erudite, demanding and compelling questions. [Interruption.] Oh, the papers are here. The least that we need is time to read the documents, or a reordering of the clauses, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West.

Stephen Timms: I accept that the material should have been available this morning, and I apologise for the fact that it was not. Of course, the section dealing with clause 28 is not as lengthy as the hon. Gentleman suggests, and I hope that we can proceed. I was anxious that Members should be able to read information that was available in the Department yesterday, and I have taken steps to ensure that they can do so.

Win Griffiths: There is an issue of procedure here. I do not have the power to suspend the Committee to allow hon. Members to read the documents, which, admittedly, have been provided at the last minute. That was unavoidable, as this is the Committee's first sitting of the new year. I am aware of the timetable for our proceedings, and further delay will put pressure on the Committee. The appropriate way to deal with the issue is to proceed through the usual channels. As there has been no illegality, and ''Erskine May'' has not been flouted—this has happened more than once during the past 20 years, and sometimes regulations have not been available at all when clauses have been debated—I have no power to suspend the Committee. If the usual channels want to resolve the matter, that is up to them.Clause 26 Limits on power to provide community facilities

Clause 26 - Limits on power to provide

Phil Willis: I beg to move amendment No. 224, in page 16, line 21, after 'they', insert 'and the maintaining LEA'.

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
 No. 182, in page 16, line 25, leave out subsection (4). 
 No. 130, in page 16, line 25, after 'body', insert 
'of a community, voluntary controlled, community special or maintained nursery school'.
 No. 131, in page 16, line 30, after 'and', insert 
'(in the case of a community, voluntary controlled, community special or maintained nursery school)'.

Phil Willis: I should say, Mr. Griffiths, that my earlier remarks about Cardiff City and Leeds United did not refer to you. You are totally neutral on such matters.
 In relation to this simple amendment, I refer hon. Members to chapter 2, section 5 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West and I were on the Committee that considered the Bill, and we appreciated the Government's inclusion in it of a direct responsibility for local education authorities to raise standards in schools. It seemed strange, but that was the first time that it had been spelt out that that was the duty of local education authorities. That was to be welcomed. In fact, the amendment would merely ensure that, as local authorities have the duty—[Interruption.] That is just my wife paging me to say that lunch is ready—we eat early in Yorkshire, because it gets dark at teatime. 
 The purpose of the amendment is to take cognisance of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and ensure that local education authorities are consulted before actions are taken. The action of one governing body on community facilities or other facilities that it provides has a knock-on effect on others. Liberal Democrats have a problem with the fact that the Government are returning to the bad old days of 1988 and the previous Conservative Government, whereby competition between schools rather than co-operation is the name of the game. To achieve good community facilities so that a governing body can use its powers for the benefit of the broader community, not only for the school, it is important that the local education authority is consulted. We are proposing not that the local education authority should have the right to veto or that it must define what happens within governing bodies, but that the recommendations under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 are transferred to the Bill so that the LEA is consulted.

Ivan Lewis: Again, I think that we agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman. However, what is puzzling is that we believe that, in such circumstances, clause 26(4) already requires the governing body to consult the LEA before it undertakes community activities and to have regard to its advice. As part of that process, the local education authority could raise any concerns that it has about the proposed activities of the governing body. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that the proposal is about not only the LEA considering whether an individual proposal would work, but it taking account of the strategic needs of a given community and ensuring, for example, that schools near to each other do not provide the same community
 activities. Under a more strategic corporate approach, there could be a better range of community activities that would benefit a particular community. Given the hon. Gentleman's spirit of open mindedness in the new year, I ask him to accept that amendment No. 224 is unnecessary because clause 26(4) contains the safeguards that he requests.

Phil Willis: I hear what the Under-Secretary says. We tabled the amendment because clause 26(3) refers to
''the performance of any duty imposed on them by section 20(2) or by any other provision of the Education Acts.''
 The inclusion of the local education authority in the provision would satisfy its requirements. However, given that the Under-Secretary will not accept our reasonable proposal, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Win Griffiths: I shall put the question that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Graham Brady: I thought that we would have an opportunity to debate the other amendments to the clause.

Win Griffiths: That opportunity has passed. If the hon. Gentleman wants to speak to clause 26 stand part, he may.

Graham Brady: In that case, I have no option but to speak to the clause.
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Graham Brady: I wanted to explain amendment No. 182. It sits alongside amendment No. 224, which has just been withdrawn by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough.

Stephen O'Brien: For the sake of fairness, I wish to intervene on my hon. Friend. He was trying desperately to read the document that he has just received, hence the unusual procedure that he is now adopting. For the record, I want it to be known that my hon. Friend is trying to catch up with the document that the Minister distributed.

Graham Brady: Ministers have encouraged us all to scrabble to understand the detail of the document that was distributed a few moments ago. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's concern for my reputation in the record of the Committee, such as it may be.
 Amendment No. 182 has almost the opposite effect to amendment No. 224. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough and I have agreed with each other for much of the proceedings. We will be more comfortable now that we are on different ground and more familiar territory. The hon. Gentleman sought to increase the role of LEAs in schools' provision of community facilities. 
 The Minister gave an interesting insight into his thinking when he said that clause 26 seeks in part to limit harmful competition between schools that provide community facilities. That suggests that it may be damaging if two neighbouring schools seek to 
 provide the same facility, and is one reason why the hon. Gentleman seeks to constrain the freedom of schools to provide the facilities that the Minister seeks to allow them under clause 25. That runs the risk, in principle and in spirit, of being contrary to what Ministers claim is the aim of the Bill: the thrust towards innovation and experimentation, and the drive to maximise the potential of resources that are focused on educational provision. Better use may be made of those resources than is made at present by opening them up to wider community use. 
 Amendment No. 182 would remove the obligation to consult the LEA. That would not greatly increase the risk of unnecessary duplication of resources, but would protect the freedom of schools to innovate and to open up their facilities in new ways. The Minister must surely accept that under clause 25 schools that provide community facilities may be competitors with not only another school, but a local authority that may be a principal provider of community facilities. In some local authority areas, good facilities may be provided for sports and recreation, such as public swimming pools. The local community may not need schools to expand the provision of such facilities. In many other areas, there may be poor facilities, or the provision may be patchy. Clause 25 is welcome in that it seeks to extend the ability of schools, which are generally widely placed around the communities that they serve, to fill existing gaps in provision. Clause 26 would regrettably constrain that by obliging schools to consult LEAs when, as providers of those facilities, LEAs may not always act impartially as protectors of the interests of the communities that they serve. 
 A local authority that provides particular facilities—with which the local populace may be less than satisfied—might find it convenient to discourage, dissuade or block provision by schools, which may have something to offer the community. The local authority may be concerned about loss of custom in a poor local swimming baths, or that a poorly lit hockey pitch will no longer be used. It may be concerned about the impact on its current leisure facilities. 
 If Ministers want to increase the likelihood of communities having good recreational facilities through opening up existing school facilities and allowing schools to improve, enhance and expand facilities, we support that. However, the Government may constrain their positive objectives by placing a potential competitor in a strong position under clause 26.

Caroline Flint: A local education authority may not provide services that a school wants to develop. For example, after-school clubs are not run directly by LEAs. In recent years, few schools have been willing to open up their premises for after-school facilities, and that has been a point of contention. As a constituency MP, I have raised that issue on behalf of parents and after-school providers who have had to look for other suitable premises. My hope for the Bill is that, through the inclusion of child care and other services as part of a school's possible remit, governing bodies will engage in discussions with head teachers
 and the wider community about putting those measures into practice.
 Provision has already developed in some areas, where there are after-school clubs, holiday play schemes or adult learning in community centres. In my constituency, several community centres have had support and resources from the Government to set up adult learning facilities using computers and other technology. Schools would be cutting off their noses to spite their faces if they did not engage with community groups, organisations and services. If such groups provide better value, or can work in partnership by encouraging after-school providers to come into schools, that is welcome. I hope that the Minister will be mindful of those groups that have a stake in the development of new facilities and services by schools. Under subsection (4)(a), I hope that Ministers will consider recognising those groups and organisations in guidance provided for schools.

Chris Grayling: Further to the comments of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), I believe that it is important that after-school clubs and a variety of community groups are able to use school premises, which remain idle for a large part of the week. That highlights the flaw in clause 26, especially subsection 4, which requires a head teacher to seek permission from a local authority to act. If three or four parents want to run a small after-school club for a dozen kids in a classroom and it is not a problem for the school, the governing body will have to submit a request to the local authority to allow them to do that. The clause states:
''Before exercising the power under section 25(1) a governing body shall consult the local education authority''.
 That puts an extra burden on a school using common sense to make a decision.

Caroline Flint: I interpret ''consult'' as consulting, not seeking permission. Furthermore, LEAs are members of early-years child care development partnerships, which aim to develop boroughwide or districtwide child care. They try to balance the provision of early-years education and a range of child care support services across the borough, and the LEA plays an important part. I suggest that we should take in good faith the emphasis on consultation.

Chris Grayling: Many of us have been involved with local authorities and schools. The measure requires a head teacher to have a discussion with the LEA—whether to consult or to seek permission—before he or she can allow three or four parents to use a classroom for a couple of hours after school on a Thursday. While some limitations on the power may be sensible, that seems an unnecessary element given what the Government are trying to achieve with the Bill. The reality is that the measure puts an extra burden on a head teacher who is actually making a simple, common-sense decision; therefore, it is unnecessary.

Ivan Lewis: The debate has been interesting. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West used his opportunity to speak on the clause to discuss the amendment that he would have made if he had not been so engrossed in the document that was circulated
 in the Committee. The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) referred to that, tongue in cheek.
 Conservative Members seem to have distanced themselves from the common-sense revolution, as they used to describe their policies. Much of the debate has been about common sense. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley was right to draw attention to the fact that a range of community service providers are linked to school sites or have partnerships with schools. The obvious body to play the crucial role of ensuring proper consultation and partnership arrangements with existing providers is the local education authority. It is the conduit that links voluntary-sector and private-sector service provision with the services that it provides directly. 
 The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) discussed the key word ''consult.'' We are not suggesting that head teachers or governing bodies must seek permission. However, it is common sense that they should consult the local education authority about significant community activity development in order to consider the implications for all the community. To ensure that young people obtain maximum benefit from the resources, ideas, innovations and facilities that exist or that are in the pipeline, it makes sense to consult and involve the local education authority. It can provide sensible, sound advice to the school, and can also look at the bigger picture of the shape, design, development and expansion of community activities. 
 Frankly, people who talk about the days when local authorities blocked initiatives and new ideas because they competed directly with their service provision are living on a different planet. Most elected members in most local authorities are desperate to rebuild communities that were decimated under years of Tory rule, and the Government are intent on doing so and on providing a better quality of life for the individuals in them. The clause is integral to the overall vision that the Government have for the rebuilding of communities as part of the rebuilding of society. The attempt to portray local education authorities as a bar to initiative and an impediment to community development is a complete misreading of what any half-decent local authority of the 21st century wants to achieve. That is the proper role of local authorities, and it is also in their self interest as it can improve public perception of their performance. A local authority will benefit directly from enhanced and cohesive services for individuals in communities that it is elected to serve. 
Mr. Brady rose—
Chris Grayling rose—

Ivan Lewis: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West.

Graham Brady: The Minister was uncharacteristically partisan in his opening comments, which I am sure he regrets. Will he consider one particular example from my constituency? There is a good local partnership between Bowdon Church of England school and the Bowdon hockey and cricket club. They co-operate in making the best use possible of a pitch that they have used jointly for many years. The Minister referred to
 the need to rebuild communities, but the local authority, Trafford metropolitan borough council, is intent on allowing building on that pitch. It will be the local authority that will frustrate an existing partnership that is working effectively and has done so for a long time. In those circumstances, what possible benefit can there be from consulting the local authority?

Ivan Lewis: The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to comment on what is clearly a politically sensitive issue in his constituency without a full briefing of the facts and without both sides of the story. I hope that he does not mind me saying this, but I am dubious about whether his account is a true reflection of the behaviour of a Labour local authority, given that he is the Conservative Member of Parliament. I would imagine that there is considerable disagreement in the community about what is in its best interest. I am not prepared to comment on particular circumstances without the full facts and a balanced picture.
 To return to the point, consultation can involve a detailed submission to get in-depth and professional advice from the local education authority on a significant community development proposal. It can also mean a telephone call to the relevant officer in the local education authority to say, ''We're thinking of doing this. Do you know what our neighbouring schools or the voluntary sector are doing or planning? Does the idea sound sensible?'' We want a common-sense, strategic and cohesive overview. We do not want to eliminate competition or to support local authorities, as portrayed by Conservative Members, that try to subvert innovation or to limit the expansion of services that would benefit their populations.

Phil Willis: I am encouraged by the Minister's comments on local authorities, because that is my experience too. In contrast to what was described by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West, a new hockey club has been built in Harrogate with the support of Sport England, the county council and Harrogate Granby high school. It is a good and well-used facilities, and an example of co-operation.
 There is one flaw in the Minister's argument: and he has siren-like qualities from time to time. There is no problem with a win-win situation like Harrogate Granby, where an all-weather hockey pitch provides good facilities for the school, club and community. However, I am sure that the Minister and the hon. Member for Don Valley would agree that we need to involve schools in some of the more demanding aspects of community activities. Some youngsters are difficult to deal with, and helping them may be one of the less sexy aspects of youth work. 
 A flaw that was deliberately engineered by the previous Tory Government is that schools can turn away organisations that most need the school for facilities. Local authorities cannot insist if schools refuse to help groups in the greatest need of facilities. We have tabled a later amendment to deal with the 
 problem, but will the Minister respond to this important issue now?

Win Griffiths: Order. Interventions should be shorter.

Ivan Lewis: The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough makes a valid point. Providing young people—and particularly the most disengaged and detached—with services and facilities poses a challenge in a whole range of policy areas. It is not easy: there are no trite ways of solving the problem. This aspect may not be attractive or sexy. In the past, insufficient financial incentives were built into the system to encourage governing bodies and head teachers to take action, which would be viewed negatively rather than positively.
 This part of the Bill is all about changing the culture. We are not trying to force or oblige governing bodies to offer a wider range of activities: that would be inappropriate. The hon. Gentleman, as a former head teacher, will know of the skills sometimes displayed by heads in subverting governing bodies. If a head teacher believes that proposals by the governing body are not a good way of proceeding, a variety of means can be used to subvert them. 
 As I said, we do not believe in forcing or obliging schools in this regard, but we want as many levers and incentives as possible to encourage them to help us to solve deep-rooted social problems. It is right to seek to raise educational standards. Providing a decent education makes a major contribution to a troubled young person's life. It provides the foundation for securing good qualifications, a decent career and decent life chances. Equally, however, imaginative and fulfilling activities can take place within a school environment to help those less likely to do well academically. More imaginative, visionary and flexible means of working with young people can be beneficial. 
 Community activities can help schools to provide a broader infrastructure, and using the new and broader community facilities can help with the management of more difficult children. Community activities benefit the wider society, bring adults back into education and connect the school to the community, but community facilities can be used in more imaginative ways to help to deal with some of the children who most challenge teachers and make their lives so difficult. That can have a knock-on effect or a spin-off benefit. 
 The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough may know from his professional experience that some head teachers of high-performing academic schools have always acknowledged their responsibility to the wider community, and especially to disaffected young people. Their genuine enthusiasm for and commitment to that concept and those principles does not undermine the standards in those schools, and has a value-added aspect. Being a more integral part of the community often enhances a school's quality of education. 
Chris Grayling rose—

Ivan Lewis: We must challenge the myth that if a school is involved in wider community activities, bringing the community into the school and the school to the community, it is deflected from its central, mainstream responsibility to raise standards, because such activities are integral to raising education standards in communities.
 I acknowledge the point made by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. We are beginning a journey to challenge the culture and to tackle some of the attitudes that prevent the development of provisions to which my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley referred. Hon. Members, especially those who were elected members of local authorities, know the frustration of parents who ask a school to provide certain facilities to which the governing body and the head teacher are not well disposed because they think that that is a distraction from their core function, whereas down the road a head teacher and a governing body with an entirely different attitude are willing to embrace change and innovation and take a wider role in the community. We all know the difficulties and the frustrations involved, but with the provisions on community activities and the power to innovate, the Bill—especially the clause—will open up opportunities and challenge the culture and attitudes to which the hon. Gentleman rightly drew the Committee's attention. I therefore ask that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Chris Grayling: Forgive me for intervening, Mr. Griffiths, but the Minister did not want to give way to me, in spite of my standing up several times. He added the important word ''significant'' when he referred to my comments. He should remember that he is making the law; the law has details and it must be obeyed. I have no problem with the concept of schools consulting local authorities about significant matters, but the wording of the measure will require every head teacher who takes a booking for the one-off use of a sports pitch to tell the local education authority by telephone. In a large LEA area that is an unnecessary restriction. The addition of the words ''significant'' and ''modification'' might be appropriate.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27 - Additional functions of governing body

Phil Willis: I beg to move amendment No. 100, in clause 27, page 16, line 42, leave out 'any' and insert 'the'.
 This is a probing amendment. Members of the Committee, especially those who are constantly in and out of schools throughout the country, will acknowledge that complaints against teachers, especially head teachers, are increasing dramatically. That is a problem for everyone in public life, not just in schools, because people are encouraged to complain more than ever before. I blame the charters introduced by Mr. Major, the former right hon. Member for Huntingdon, which were introduced without the resources to support them. People's expectation of 
 the service that they receive was raised far beyond what it was possible to deliver. A litigious culture has developed in which parents who do not get what they think is the right outcome for their child see it as a failure by the teacher or head teacher concerned, and they complain. 
 We have a system for parental complaints against head teachers, but the process is extraordinarily detailed, procedural and convoluted. That is detrimental to the complainant, because a conclusion takes so long to reach, and to the head teacher, who has to deal with a huge amount of bureaucracy in responding to the complaint. Ultimately, the head teacher must appear before a panel of governors for the complaint to be discharged. 
 The purpose of this simple amendment is to tease out the Government's thinking. I am sure that the Minister supports the tenor of my comments, if not the detail. If a complaint is made, it should be heard and dealt with quickly, so that people can move on and not get involved in a huge procedural outcome. Some issues, however, threaten to involve criminal law. Clearly, complaints from which criminal cases might proceed are different from the run-of-the-mill complaints that are regularly made to most head teachers and chairs of governors in the course of their duties. 
 Clause 27(2) states: 
''In establishing or publicising procedures under subsection (1), the governing body shall have regard to any guidance given from time to time . . . by the Secretary of State or . . . the National Assembly for Wales.''
 That is a huge, all-inclusive provision. ''Any guidance'' means anything that the Secretary of State or the National Assembly may introduce at any time. The amendment proposes that there should be specific guidance. By changing the word ''any'' to ''the'', there would be specific guidance on the way in which governing bodies can exercise their functions. 
 Governing bodies should be allowed to get on with developing their own procedures within a broad framework that is exercised by the Government. Procedures that work in downtown Chapeltown in Leeds will be different from those that work in parts of Northumberland or other communities. Governors should be allowed to get on with developing procedures provided that they meet the requirements of protecting the individual who has been complained about and the complainant. That is the purpose of this probing amendment.

Stephen Timms: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has just said. The clause establishes a statutory duty on governing bodies to establish and publicise procedures for dealing with school complaints. They do not currently have that duty, and I agree that it is important to have it in place. The overwhelming majority of governing bodies have complaints procedures in place, and they certainly take complaints seriously.
 There is room for more debate on the need for Government to prescribe in detail the processes and procedures that should apply to every school in the 
 country. I agree that, in practice, there will be variation among schools in different circumstances and different areas. 
 Under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, we consulted on draft regulations for complaints procedures, and there was a strong feeling in the response that we were being unduly prescriptive in setting out exactly how the procedures should work. As a result, the Minister at the time decided not to go ahead with introducing a statutory requirement under the 1998 Act, although there was the power to do so. We have learnt from that, and we can now build on the work done at that time. There is already useful practice and experience on complaints procedures at local level, including a good deal of guidance on handling complaints from, for instance, LEAs, diocesan boards and the local government ombudsman. 
 I am reluctant to say that there will definitely be guidance as I am not sure that Government guidance is necessarily appropriate. We want to ensure that governing bodies have access to clear and helpful guidance on establishing and publishing complaints procedures, but we want to avoid unnecessary and confusing duplication of guidance. We intend to undertake a review of existing complaints procedures, many of which share common features, to make good practice examples available on our school governors' website. We will also consult on whether there should be a limited number of key principles, such as on the time limits that should apply, to which schools might be asked to adhere in devising their procedures. 
 We need to do some more work before we determine whether Government guidance is needed in this area. I am reluctant to accept the amendment because it would imply that there definitely will be guidance. Although I am resisting the amendment, I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman that his sentiments are in line with our approach. We recognise that there will be different approaches in different schools, and we want schools to have access to examples of good practice in complaints procedures. It sounds as though, in the hon. Gentleman's experience, procedures have not worked as well as they might. 
 We want to ensure that examples of good practice are available to schools, but not at this stage to decide whether Government guidance is appropriate: we will make that decision in the light of the consultation that will follow. If there is to be guidance or if examples of good practice are to be made available, that will happen early in the 2003–04 academic year. I hope that is of some reassurance to the hon. Gentleman. He made it clear that it is a probing amendment, so I hope that he will feel able to withdraw it.

Chris Grayling: I am worried by some aspects of the Minister's remarks. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough made a good point about our current litigious and complaining society, although I
 do not agree with his analysis of the reasons for it. There is obviously a sensible balance to be struck between listening for justified complaints from parents and allowing parents to complain about anything that moves, which is the case in too many schools. A few weeks ago a head teacher told me that one of his biggest problems is that parents often refuse to accept what the teachers say. If the teachers say that a pupil is causing problems, more often than not the parents will not accept it.
 It worries me that the Minister does not feel that any guidance is necessary on that. We need to think of the nature of schools. Amateur governing bodies do their best to provide support to head teachers in an area that is becoming increasingly problematic for schools. The burden of complaints, particularly about the conduct of staff, is growing all the time. Schools need clear support and guidance on that. The Government will have to be quite tough in setting out when complaints will be accepted and how they will be processed, and they must protect teachers against the risk of false allegations by pupils, which happens all too regularly. 
 It also worries me that the Minister is not certain that Government guidance on such matters is needed. It is one of the few areas in which their guidance is definitely required. They must show leadership and help schools to deal with complaints and related circumstances. I urge the Minister to reconsider what he has just said. It is necessary to give schools support and a clear framework within which to operate, and to give their heads, governors and teachers strong protection against a culture in which people's behaviour and their unwillingness to accept what teachers say are not given serious enough attention.

Phil Willis: The debate has been interesting and important. I agree with many of the comments made by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell. Although at first he said that there were not many complaints, he concluded by saying that more complaints are indeed being received. At least we have come together at the end of the circle. There is a lot of guidance. The Minister was right to say that different organisations have issued guidance and that there is no statutory process at present, but that that leads to significant confusion. We do not want each school to have the same procedures. The Minister also made that point.
 I agree with the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell that a broad framework within which schools must operate would be extremely welcome. If the Minister is suggesting that draft proposals should be put forward for consultation through the website, that would also be welcome. I examined the issue after the previous consultation process, and I agreed with the then Minister, who is now the Secretary of State, that the proposed procedures were over-elaborate and over-prescriptive and, instead of solving problems for schools, they would have added to them. In light of the debate, I hope that the Minister will think again about the issue and perhaps, before the Bill is enacted, proposals could be produced either here or in the other place to bring together the best of the guidance, which would help schools and their governors to form their policies.

Stephen Timms: I hope that I made it clear that advice will be provided. The question whether the Government should issue formal guidance should be subject to more discussion. To answer the hon. Gentleman's point, I do not think that such discussions will be concluded before the end of our debates on the Bill, because wider consultation will need to take place. He may be right, however, that a limited set of key agreed principles could then be issued as guidance. However, we must have a wide discussion to see whether that is the appropriate way forward.

Phil Willis: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Graham Brady: I beg to move amendment No. 183, in page 17, line 11, leave out 'comply with' and insert 'take account of'.
 The amendment explores how far Ministers believe that the heads and governing bodies of schools have meaningful, managerial independence. The amendment would replace the requirement under which the governing bodies and the head teachers of 
''a community or voluntary controlled school . . . a community special school, or . . . a maintained nursery school''
 are placed under a duty to 
''comply with any direction given to them by the local education authority concerning the health and safety of persons on the school's premises or taking part in any school activities elsewhere.''
 The amendment would delete the term ''comply with'' and replace it with ''take account of''. It would ensure that schools were properly advised and informed of what the health and safety provisions should be, and that schools that were ''community or voluntary controlled'' or fell under one of the other categories listed in subsection (5) would not be left in the cold by the education authority, because it could still offer direction on health and safety matters, but that direction would not be compulsory. The governing body and the head teacher would exercise managerial independence in meeting the obligations imposed on them by the Bill and by existing health and safety legislation. 
 If the Government resist the amendment, responsibility will be transferred from the head and the governing body. Under the Bill, ultimate responsibility rests with the local education authority, which is required to direct the school to comply with health and safety provisions. 
 If the Bill is not amended, the governing body and the head teacher will not be responsible for health and safety in the school: they will have passed any meaningful responsibility for those matters to the local education authority. If the amendment is agreed to, the local education authority will still have a duty to direct when it perceives a danger on health and safety issues. It could give advice, guidance and information, but the head and the governing body would decide whether to take account of that direction and make use of it to fulfil their obligations to ensure that the school is a safe working and educational environment for staff, pupils and visitors to the premises. 
 It is interesting that some categories of school have been picked out and listed in subsection (5). That raises the issue of the extent to which the Government are serious about the autonomy of schools. There is already a difference between the degree of autonomy available to any foundation and voluntary-aided school, and that available to 
''a community or voluntary controlled school . . . a community special school, or . . . a maintained nursery school''.
 That difference is defined in a new way in subsection (5), which takes day-to-day managerial responsibilities away from schools and gives them to local education authorities. Not only is that negative for the autonomy of schools, but it is less likely to result in effective health and safety provision. Surely it would be more effective to place day-to-day control of health and safety in the hands of the people who most intimately know the school—who know its working environment, and who represent, through election to the governing body, both those who work in the school and those whose children are its pupils. It is better to place that control directly in the hands of people who intimately know the school, and who can take real responsibility for it—with the proper guidance and back-up that the local authority can provide—than to make it a matter of compulsion and instruction, which takes control out of their hands, and, therefore, places the onus, and the final responsibility, on the local education authority. 
 Is not the Minister concerned that there is a danger that, if a local education authority does not make a specific direction, it will incur a liability under health and safety legislation for having failed so to do? If clause 27 remains unamended, it will possible for the governing body and the head teacher to avoid that responsibility. Following an accident or a mishap, they can point to subsection (5) and say, ''We were not directed by the local authority. Had we been directed by the local authority, we would immediately have complied with that direction, but, as there was no such direction, we have done nothing wrong.'' The responsibility should lie with the school, and the head teacher and the governors should have the responsibility to provide a safe working, teaching and learning environment in the school, while drawing on the advice, guidance and support of the local education authority. I am interested to hear the Minister's response to that.

Stephen Timms: There is a significant problem with the hon. Gentleman's proposal; it would amount to a significant weakening of the health and safety protection for pupils, and others, in schools.
 As the hon. Gentleman has rightly said, the local education authority is the employer of the staff in the schools that are listed in subsection (5), and it also owns the premises. Therefore, it has the primary responsibility for health and safety matters under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. Given that the authority bears that statutory responsibility, we need to ensure that it also has the power to address problems when they arise, because, otherwise, it would have the statutory responsibility without being able to do anything to meet it. As the authority carries the liability under the Act, it is right that we should give it 
 the power to make directions, and that the head teacher and the governing body should be under a duty to comply with those directions. 
 It might further reassure the hon. Gentleman to know that the position that I have outlined was inserted in the Education Act 1986 by the then Secretary of State, Lord Baker. He introduced local management of schools; that was done on the insistence of the Health and Safety Executive, which was worried that, otherwise, there would be a statutory requirement on local education authorities but that there would be no mechanism for them to fulfil their statutory obligations. With regard to that, the form of words under discussion ensures that the mechanism that is needed is in place.

Graham Brady: The Minister has gone a considerable way towards reassuring me, and other Committee members will be reassured to know that my right hon. and noble Friend, Lord Baker, had a hand in the original legislation. That will give them great confidence and make them feel far happier.
 The amendment under discussion is a probing amendment, but it has been useful. I have certainly found the debate about it informative, even if other Committee members have not. However, I wish to press the Minister a little further about one point. Given the current wording—whose provenance, I accept, may be in the 1986 Act—is it possible to construe that the power or responsibility to direct as the body principally responsible under the 1974 Act is exclusive? Is it possible for the school to avoid what one may regard as its natural responsibility because the primary responsibility of the employer and owner of the premises lies elsewhere? Would it be appropriate to examine whether that should lie alongside other obligations that could be properly put in legislation to place a duty on the head and governor to maintain a safe and healthy working environment—in the terms of the 1974 Act—while providing the power that is in the Bill for the local education authority to direct when appropriate? That would provide the power that the authority requires as the body that is ultimately responsible as owner and employer.

Stephen Timms: In practice, there is no problem. The hon. Gentleman is satisfied with the position under the 1974 Act that the local education authority bears primary responsibility. In practice, local arrangements will be made between the LEA and its schools to satisfy the LEA that its statutory obligations are met through what happens in each school. The mechanism has worked well.

Graham Brady: I am satisfied by the Minister's response. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Caroline Flint: I beg to move amendment No. 160, in page 17, line 13, at end insert—
'(6) The governing body of a maintained school shall use their best endeavours to secure that— 
 (a) reasonable steps are taken by the governing body, head teacher and staff to ascertain the views of pupils on matters which affect them, and 
 (b) due weight is given to the expressed views of pupils on matters affecting them, having regard to the pupil's age and understanding.'.
 I apologise to the Committee on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Miliband) who, unfortunately, cannot be present. 
 I am delighted to move the amendment, which would allow the views of the people who will be most affected by the Bill and actions taken by schools to be aired; the pupils. I thank the Children's Consortium on Education and, especially, Save the Children for providing me with briefings about this issue. 
 There is no doubt—I am fully aware of this—that, since 1997, the Government have endeavoured to examine different, new and imaginative ways in which to allow pupils to participate in issues that affect them most in school. Those issues may be about learning, or about the way in which the school is run. In Doncaster, in schools, youth clubs and the Connexions service, we try to examine ways of engaging young people and allowing their voices to be heard on issues that affect them. When I hold children's surgeries, I am amazed—although I should not be—that children and young people raise many of the same worries as their parents, grandparents and other adults. Those worries may be about access to services, crime or the environment in which they live. 
 When I talk to young people, it comes across that even when schools endeavour to include young people and children in issues that the school is addressing—such as the curriculum or the way in which the school is run—young people and children who attend students' councils and participate do not feel part of the decision-making process. They are not encouraged to participate when considering issues that are of real interest to them. That often leads to apathy on students' councils or other school forums because, after a while, the kids think that their voices are not heard on the nitty-gritty issues. That does not mean that everything that they say should be agreed to. If one participates, one must accept that sometimes one's opinions will not be heard, as we know from this place. 
 The issue of relevance is important. From September this year, citizenship will be introduced in the curriculum, as will requirements in terms of citizen education within key stages three and four. I am voicing the concern—expressed by groups outside this place—that unless there is some kind of statutory and legal common standard of access to participation that acknowledges pupils, not enough tangible change will occur. A recent review of pupil democracy in Europe highlighted the fact that the UK is out of line with the rest of Europe. There is no legislation on pupil involvement or grievance procedures, no pupil ombudsman, and no system for consulting pupils on education policy. 
 Why would it be a good idea to include the amendment in the Bill? First, children and young people should have appropriate access to having a say in how important decisions affecting them are made 
 and in how and where they are educated. Clause 27(3) states: 
''The governing body of a maintained school may require pupils in attendance at the school to attend at any place outside the school premises for the purposes of receiving any instruction or training included in the secular curriculum for the school.''
 That raises the issue of where young people are educated, and in what sort of school environment they are educated. I am referring to wrap-around policies that affect the ethos of the school; the way in which it tackles bullying, the general built environment and facilities in the playground. When kids are told that, regardless of the weather, they must go out in the playground, problems are caused if there is not much for them to do there. Kids have said to me that litter is one of the reasons why they hate their school environment, because that kind of degeneration is not tackled. We all know that if the environment is not pleasant, they will not be motivated to learn or work well. 
 The amendment refers to reasonable steps being taken and due weight being given. It does not refer to free-for-all children's rights. I may be out of step with Save the Children and the consortium, but I do not believe in children's rights regardless. I am not an advocate of voting at 16, for example. However, I believe in looking at what are the appropriate stages in children's and young people's lives when they have something relevant to offer. 
 One example was given to me by a primary school teacher, who told me how teachers and the governing body had discussed how to get a grip on the way in which the playground operated, and how kids in the playground interacted. They devised a set of playground rules that were stuck up on nice coloured posters around the playground, only to have a seven-year-old telling them, within minutes of them going up, that there was a loophole in one of the rules. Kids have intelligence, and they can help us to avoid spending a lot of time and energy on things that they can find their way around blindfold. 
 Most of us who have worked with children or who are parents know that, when we try to communicate a rule or a point of view to young children, we can find ourselves at cross purposes unless we ask them to tell us what they understand by what we have said. That happens a lot. It may be because adults, like children, decide to switch off when the other is talking. That is an important part of the process in schools. If schools are to consider changes in the curriculum and the way in which young children want to learn—for example, if a governing body sits down and decides that it wants to change the format of the classes or classroom, or that it wants to introduce technology to help children learn—we must test those ideas out with the people whom we hope will benefit from such changes. 
 Unless we seek children's ideas to make sure—for want of a better phrase—that we are singing from the same song sheet and that we understand what is going on, enormous energy, effort and resources might go into things that, at the end of the day, do not necessarily prove their worth. Those are all good 
 reasons why formally acknowledging children and young people's involvement could benefit the Bill. 
 We already encourage participation and citizenship in schools. What better way to enhance that aspect of the curriculum than by applying it to real life? Many people find that when they are given hypothetical situations about which to theorize, the experience is not real. The citizenship agenda would not merely involve sitting in a classroom and examining case studies, but decision-making in the school environment. I hope that it would add excitement for children and young people. 
 In schools that have taken a positive approach to the agenda, research shows that there has been an impact in terms of behavioural policies and outcomes, and on educational achievement, attendance and so forth. 
 The Bill states that it is necessary to specify parents and employees as governors, but not pupils, and, while the Bill states that it is necessary to specify that the annual parents meeting should be open to parents and head teachers, it does not specify pupils. There is a concern that, despite all the guidelines and research about positively encouraging student involvement, we could still end up with a hit-and-miss affair. If one had to change schools for some reason, one could go from a culture of inclusion and participation in one school to another that was isolated and token in its approach. 
 I look forward to my hon. Friend the Minister's comments. Pupil involvement in schools is an important stepping stone towards encouraging future participation in democratic society when, as adults, they have the opportunity to vote.

Chris Grayling: I commend the hon. Lady on the principles of her amendment. Her commitment to the involvement, well-being and success of the pupils in her constituency and beyond is evident.
 The older generation does not always do the best job in planning for the needs of the younger generation. A personal bugbear is that our country's response to a lack of activities for the young tends to be, ''Let's build a youth club''. We tend to concentrate on offering fixed assets rather than on things to do. In providing for the younger generation, I would like to see a greater focus on activity rather than infrastructure. The hon. Lady pointed out the need to ensure that pupils' aspirations, interests and views are clearly reflected in the management of schools, and that too many schools have pressed ahead without the staff taking that into account. 
 I endorse the principle behind the amendment, but I am not sure that one can legislate for good management practice in schools; that is something that good heads, teachers and governors are doing anyway. If we want them to be more open to the views of pupils, we should encourage good management practice. I do not think that the amendment would deliver a framework that would achieve that. It would be better to invest more effort in guiding and training 
 teachers, heads and governors to think about the best ways of involving their pupils. 
 The hon. Lady raised the matter of pupils as governors. Having sat on governing bodies, there is a lot to be said for them taking on board more clearly the views of pupils. If I have a reservation about the concept of pupils as governors, it is that commercial and confidential information is raised at meetings, which would require a pupil governor to be in and out like a yo-yo. Topics such as disciplinary matters and matters related to staff pay simply could not be discussed, even with the most responsible of pupil governors, without carrying the risk of sensitive information flying round the school at high speed. That is why I believe that pupil governors ultimately could never work. However, the involvement of pupils in parts of governors' meetings or discussions would be an asset and should be taken on board by heads and governing bodies. With those comments, I applaud the amendment and hope that Ministers will take into account the principle behind it.

Phil Willis: The Liberal Democrats also strongly support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Don Valley, and I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell about the hon. Lady's support for and commitment to education, which shine out in everything she says and does.
 My sadness about the amendments is that they do not go far enough; they are timid. I accept the hon. Lady's reasons for that timidity, but most of the schools that want to operate such inclusive policies are already doing so. The amendments will not make a blind bit of difference. Those schools in which students are still regarded as the enemy or an inconvenience should be targeted. I have often heard teachers saying that school is great on Baker or in-service training days when the kids are not there. That is partly because there is not the engagement with young people that the hon. Members for Don Valley and for Epsom and Ewell want. 
 I remember disregarding young people's voices at great cost. I once filled in an exam paper when I was incredibly bored while invigilating. I filled in all sorts of strange answers and put a fictitious pupil's name at the top. I wrote at the bottom, ''I will give you £5, sir, if I get a good mark''. Little did I know that a student of that name had just arrived in the school. The outraged head of science took the pupil and the offending paper to see the head, and severe retribution was exacted on the young person while he protested in great innocence that he did not even sit the exam. That was a salutary reminder that we should always listen to children. I confess that it was many months afterwards before I admitted to what I had done. As the family had just arrived from Kenya, I saw the young man and his parents to reassure them that that was not the way in which the British did things. 
 With that slight aside, I must say that the amendment is serious. The United Nations convention on the rights of the child makes it clear that the voices of young people should be heard. With the code of practice following the Special Education 
 Needs and Disability Act 2001, the Government enshrined the right of young people to be heard whenever we make provision for them. If that is possible for young people with special needs and disabilities, it should be right for every child. I support the amendment and hope that the Government will examine it, and ensure that the Bill gives young people those rights. 
 As a party, we are committed to extending the right to vote to young people at 16. We cannot hope to engage young people in the politic general without giving them real power, which means giving them a vote. Sadly, waiting until young people are 18, by which time they are engaged in many other activities, means that many are turned off totally. I hope that if the Government do not accept this amendment, they will propose others to enshrine in legislation the right of children to be heard in matters that concern them.

Stephen Timms: We have had an interesting discussion. My hon. Friend the member for Don Valley has achieved remarkable consensus on both sides of the Committee on her amendment and her contribution to the matters under discussion. The debate is important and will continue outside the Committee. We recognise that the voice of young people is an important one, to which we do well to listen. We need the perspectives and fresh thinking of young people on debates about our education system and other issues.
 In November, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), who is the Minister for Young People in the Children and Young People's Unit, published the core principles that we will follow to ensure that children and young people are involved in the planning and delivery of the policies and services that affect them. All Departments have given a public commitment to those principles and will implement action plans to encourage more opportunities for the involvement of children. My hon. Friend is the first Minister for Young People and will lead that brief. All Departments will be helped and challenged in that work by the Children and Young People's Unit. 
 We are determined that we should lead the way in that area, not least because we have a good track record on which to build. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley referred to the introduction of citizenship into the curriculum from next September. We want to encourage the greater discussion of issues that affect young people, and to see greater involvement of young people through participation in communities and public life. We funded the School Councils UK's production of a secondary schools' toolkit to support students' active participation in the decisions that affect them through school councils and to build on the successful version that exists at primary level. That model is working well, and we want to see more such positive and effective examples. 
 I was going to set out some of the steps that we have taken to increase children's and young people's participation, but I may not in view of the time. We referred to that participation in the Green Paper last year and in the White Paper in September. In the 
 White Paper, we referred especially to the way in which Ofsted proposes to consult children more in reviewing and inspecting what happens at a particular school. Ofsted has issued questionnaires since September that seek the views of sixth-form pupils, and it is proposing to extend the use of questionnaires to all secondary-school pupils as an automatic part of the review process. 
 I am sure that my hon. Friend the member for Don Valley will welcome that change. She mentioned that Save the Children has been active and has made a valuable contribution to these matters. In November, we held a consultation day on the White Paper with Save the Children. I found that meeting useful, and several interesting lessons emerged from it; not least the concern of children and young people about the problem of challenging behaviour in schools and the need to focus on supporting those who behave badly so that they behave better. It was interesting how important that theme was in the thinking of young people on the proposed changes. 
 I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley will recognise that we are determined and committed to the participation of pupils in issues that affect their school and in the wider debate about policy. The question is what is the most effective way to make that happen. Schools should be free to choose the best way in which to do that. The extent to which pupils are involved in decisions on, for example, what part school councils will play in the delivery of citizenship will depend on the circumstances of the school. Primary, secondary and special schools will be different. It is right that young people should be consulted on the matters that are important to them, but imposing a statutory obligation is not the best way to achieve that. My hon. Friend gave a great example of the seven-year-old who commented on some proposals. If the school and its governors were breaking the rules, real problems would ensue. I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the amendment. She made an important point, and the debate will continue outside the Committee.

Caroline Flint: I am glad that we have had this debate, and I agree that it should continue outside the Committee. Young people's rights are important, and I am open to persuasion on voting at 16. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 It being One o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D [28 June 2001] and the order of the Committee [11, 13 and 18 December 2001], to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time. 
 Question put, That clauses 27 to 35, schedule 2 and clause 36 stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clauses 27 to 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 2 agreed to. 
 Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37 - Interpretation of Chapter 1

Amendment proposed: No. 205, in page 23, line 40, at end insert— 
' ''budget share'' has the same meaning as in Part 2 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c. 31);'.—[Mr. Timms.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 37, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 - AMENDMENTS OF PART 2 OF SCHOOL STANDARDS

Amendment proposed: No. 260, in page 131, line 4, leave out '(2)(a)' and insert '(2)(b)'.—[Mr. Timms.] 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Four o'clock.